a court would be reluctant to find in favour of the appellant, surely? finding against the govt in this sort of circumstance would hamper its ability to make executive decisions that are its fundamental role. the major mechanism to overturn such decisions is elections, not court action.

There are precedents. For example Metgasco won a case against NSW over the cancellation of their gas exploration license. This would have allowed them to seek compensation but they accepted a payout in the end. Governments are as susceptible to the law as any other organisation. Court action is very common, you only hear about the sensational stuff.

"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"- Me

Governments are definitely susceptible to their own law, and if they breach it there can be consequences. But in the case of banning greyhounds, I thought they were changing the law. I didn't think that you could normally sue the govt over a law. The courts can only use the law to make a judgment.

It hasn't been passed into law yet. I expect that one avenue will be to see if the NSW government has the power to pass it, there have been suggestions it could be unconstitutional. That's the sort of thing that can only be tested in the courts.

Metgasco took them to court over the cancellation of their license and the court determined it was illegal. So rather than go to court again over compensation, the payout was offered and accepted. A similar thing could occur. I expect that the greyhound trainers will be hoping that the threat of it might cause the govt to reconsider.

Another example was back in the 90's when the superannuation industry took the ATO to court over legislation to increase the surcharge on contributions. The ATO lost but won on appeal. They made the law retrospective to when it was first introduced (cost me quite a bit actually) (bastards).

"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"- Me

silentC wrote:There are precedents. For example Metgasco won a case against NSW over the cancellation of their gas exploration license. This would have allowed them to seek compensation but they accepted a payout in the end. Governments are as susceptible to the law as any other organisation. Court action is very common, you only hear about the sensational stuff.

A license implies there was a contract of sorts. I wouldn't think there is anything in our laws that says that any industry has any 'right' to exist as such. Particularly industries that are known for breaking laws.

The other thing about this thread is that greyhound industry is just that, an industry. Cyclists by themselves are not an industry of any kind. It's a form of transport, a recreational activity. One which poses very little threat to others. They might try to ban the manufacturing and sale of bicycles and bicycle accessories but as far as I'm concerned, to ban cycling as such would be a breach of our right to free movement.

To argue that cycling might get the same treatment because a few cyclists break the law is clutching at straws. Breaking the road rules isn't even close to being in the same ballpark as the atrocities that the greyhound industry is responsible for. But banning cyclists would also mean that motorists should be banned as well along with pedestrians. In fact, motorists probably should be banned given the amount of road kill I come across on my rides that motorists haven't even had the decency to stop and move from the road.

jules21 wrote:Governments are definitely susceptible to their own law, and if they breach it there can be consequences. But in the case of banning greyhounds, I thought they were changing the law. I didn't think that you could normally sue the govt over a law. The courts can only use the law to make a judgment.

Isn't that the key issue regarding our proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement with 12 other countries (primarily USA)?...foreign co. can sue our govt should they decide to do "something" (like pass new legislation demanded by voters?) which inconveniences a foreign corporation. Yet, local co. will NOT be able to sue our govt, afaik. 'Course it might all boil down to how much money you have, regardless of where you're based.

BJL wrote:A license implies there was a contract of sorts. I wouldn't think there is anything in our laws that says that any industry has any 'right' to exist as such. Particularly industries that are known for breaking laws.

Didn't want to get bogged down in specifics about that case, just offering it as an example of the government being taken to court and in this case losing and having to pay compensation. WRT to greyhound racing, they will have to introduce a bill in order to get the ban in place and affected parties are quite within their rights to challenge it in the courts if they wish. In reference to Jules' post, courts are able to determine the validity of legislation, not just enforce it. For example they could find that the NSW government does not have the power (unlikely). They can also award compensation. What they won't do is make value judgements about the merits of the industry.

"If your next bike does not have disc brakes, the bike after that certainly will"- Me

No surprise that the Greens & Animal Justice supported banning greyhound racing - the Greens tried to ban it last year. Similarly no surprise about the position of the shooters - would probably vote in favour of live baiting given the opportunity.

To be honest the only surprising bit for me is that Labor thinks it is a vote winner.

In the Telegraph (so we know its true), there was an article stating $1,500 compensation per greyhound. So how to fund that? What about the sale of Wentworth park [built on public land] to the developers.

It shows my lack of confidence in the NSW government that I would think that.

Now the bullying of other minority groups that don't have real voting power may be more supple, in the case of our minority group, the objectives being has to reduce the popularity of cycling and therefor restrict or reverse the rollout of bike lanes, which take up public space used for things like parking

Oh and BTW, I've driven down College st several times this week. How much difference did it make to my journey having one more lane available - NONE

I reckon if you are searching for analogies it would be that "Cycling might be banned as cyclists are cruel to their bikes" .....

If you are searching for consequences that might affect cyclists in the same way; ( overbearing government action in NSW), you are too late.

It has already happened with the increased fines for cyclists in that state and the helmet, bell,brakes, clampdown.

If you are looking for the general public response re both situations, it will be similar. The general public just doesn't give a damn.

They will take the easiest way of thinking as water finds the easiest way of flowing. And the answer will be; how much does it really affect them.So too bad for the racing dog people......Too bad for the cyclists, it helps to get em off my road....

jules21 wrote:Governments are definitely susceptible to their own law, and if they breach it there can be consequences. But in the case of banning greyhounds, I thought they were changing the law. I didn't think that you could normally sue the govt over a law. The courts can only use the law to make a judgment.

Isn't that the key issue regarding our proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement with 12 other countries (primarily USA)?...foreign co. can sue our govt should they decide to do "something" (like pass new legislation demanded by voters?) which inconveniences a foreign corporation. Yet, local co. will NOT be able to sue our govt, afaik. 'Course it might all boil down to how much money you have, regardless of where you're based.

+1. Recall the plain packaging ban was challenged on the grounds of some obscure trade agreement.

Alan Jones and his talk-back radio listeners were protesting for the industry. From what I've heard about talk-back radio, "cyclists" fall below greyhound dogs on the order of humane treatment concerns.

What's the bet the industry coughed up some money to lobbyists, lawyers and agreed to 'share' some of the proceeds with assorted power-brokers? Can we see Alan Jones financial statements since Baird first declared the ban?

Interesting to see what transpires with the plan to put demountable classrooms on Wentworth Park...they might have to deal with Drunken's - and the coalition's bete noire, Clover Moore for the COS site now.

Tragic death of the woman killed by the bus on Cleveland St on the weekend and the kid out at Mt Druitt yesterday hasn't resulted in the ambos not being able to do their job.....or calls for ID laws for everyone yet either. Who would have thunk!

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.